Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

[Terminal Cyclist]

Two key figures from the anti doping world have said it would be very difficult indeed to cover up a positive test.

IOC president Jacques Rogge:

"To my knowledge it is not possible to hide a positive result," Rogge told ESPN. "The lab knows the code. WADA gets it also. Then it goes to the national and international federations. One person cannot decide: 'I can put this under the carpet.'"

Former president of the German cycling federation, Sylvia Schenk, echoed this opinion. Schenk held the position at the time of events and now chairs an international organisation fighting corruption, Transparency International.

"I do not think that a positive doping test can be easily covered up, especially in the case of such a famous rider like Armstrong," Schenk told Cyclingnews on Tuesday. "The tests are performed in accredited labs; it would be difficult to bury a positive result as there are too many people involved. But not only that: I also doubt that the UCI would do such a thing."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-uci-needs-more-transparency

Schenk goes on to criticise the perception caused by Armstrong's donation to the UCI and calls for more transparency. But it would appear the allegation that Armstrong somehow overruled a positive test is the weakest part of Landis' case. Does this now call into question Landis' other claims?

 

[thehog]

Two key figures from the anti doping world have said it would be very difficult indeed to cover up a positive test.

IOC president Jacques Rogge:



Former president of the German cycling federation, Sylvia Schenk, echoed this opinion. Schenk held the position at the time of events and now chairs an international organisation fighting corruption, Transparency International.



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sche...e-transparency

Schenk goes on to criticise the perception caused by Armstrong's donation to the UCI and calls for more transparency. But it would appear the allegation that Armstrong somehow overruled a positive test is the weakest part of Landis' case. Does this now call into question Landis' other claims?

Landis didn’t claim the UCI accepted a bribe to cover up a positive. He only relayed a story that Armstrong had told him on a training ride. Maybe Armstrong was big noting his importance to the young and then impressionable Landis. Landis only claim is that Armstrong told him the story not that the event took place. Either way you look at it Armstrong was either paying off the UCI for a positive test or messing with the mind of a young cyclist – ie stick with me, dope, I know people and you won’t get caught.

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

Landis didn’t claim the UCI accepted a bribe to cover up a positive. He only relayed a story that Armstrong had told him on a training ride. Maybe Armstrong was big noting his importance to the young and then impressionable Landis. Landis only claim is that Armstrong told him the story not that the event took place. Either way you look at it Armstrong was either paying off the UCI for a positive test or messing with the mind of a young cyclist – ie stick with me, dope, I know people and you won’t get caught.

I don't think he should have included hearsay in his evidence. It just has the effect of casting doubt on the rest of his claims.

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

Landis didn’t claim the UCI accepted a bribe to cover up a positive. He only relayed a story that Armstrong had told him on a training ride. Maybe Armstrong was big noting his importance to the young and then impressionable Landis. Landis only claim is that Armstrong told him the story not that the event took place. Either way you look at it Armstrong was either paying off the UCI for a positive test or messing with the mind of a young cyclist – ie stick with me, dope, I know people and you won’t get caught.

I don't think he should have included hearsay in his evidence. It just has the effect of casting doubt on the rest of his claims.
-

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am not too impressed with Roggues comments - as back in 2001 WADA had nothing to do with the UCI. All poitives went to the IOC & UCI, Verbruggen was President of the UCI and was a senior figure within the IOC and indeed he still is.

Schenk has spoken before about the 'special relationship' between Armstrong and the UCI. She raises a good point that the UCI need to show how much was paid by Armstrong and when.

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

Schenk has spoken before about the 'special relationship' between Armstrong and the UCI. She raises a good point that the UCI need to show how much was paid by Armstrong and when.

It is possible that they're telling the truth, in that Armstrong was very keen that doper riders were caught after he had finished his own career. Dopers like Landis perhaps who might take his own glory away. That could be why he wanted the UCI to have this equipment for blood analysis.

 

[Cerberus]

Two key figures from the anti doping world have said it would be very difficult indeed to cover up a positive test.

IOC president Jacques Rogge:



Former president of the German cycling federation, Sylvia Schenk, echoed this opinion. Schenk held the position at the time of events and now chairs an international organisation fighting corruption, Transparency International.



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sche...e-transparency

Schenk goes on to criticise the perception caused by Armstrong's donation to the UCI and calls for more transparency. But it would appear the allegation that Armstrong somehow overruled a positive test is the weakest part of Landis' case. Does this now call into question Landis' other claims?

That particular allegation was always the weakest part of his case. Everything else he said was things that anyone who'd been watching cycling with open eyes already knew or suspected. The allegation of outright corruption in UCI was, if not exactly new, at least not supported by any significant evidence. As for casting doubt on his other claims it doesn't really matter. Landis didn't have the credibility to make any of this stick in the first place. If corroborating evidence can be found, for example in the form of other riders coming forward in which case Landis credibility is a non-issue. If it can't the exactly how low his credibility is has no judicial significance.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think he should have included hearsay in his evidence. It just has the effect of casting doubt on the rest of his claims.
-

Um, he was not testifying in court. Hearsay is a legal term reserved for court proceedings. Take your veiled fanboy apologist crap somewhere else.

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is possible that they're telling the truth, in that Armstrong was very keen that doper riders were caught after he had finished his own career. Dopers like Landis perhaps who might take his own glory away. That could be why he wanted the UCI to have this equipment for blood analysis.

For someone who has been on this board for nearly a year using 40+ usernames I am suprised that you dont remember that Lance admitted to the SCA case in 2004 that he had paid the UCI.

Pat now claims it was 2005.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

It is possible that they're telling the truth, in that Armstrong was very keen that doper riders were caught after he had finished his own career. Dopers like Landis perhaps who might take his own glory away. That could be why he wanted the UCI to have this equipment for blood analysis.

That would fit the profile for a Sociopath....

Ensure others are punished and ruined for the same sins as you, while laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

For someone who has been on this board for nearly a year using 40+ usernames I am suprised that you dont remember that Lance admitted to the SCA case in 2004 that he had paid the UCI.

Pat now claims it was 2005.

I don't know the truth of that. Maybe it took six months to order and he wanted it for immediately after he retired? Who knows...

 

[thehog]

I don't think he should have included hearsay in his evidence. It just has the effect of casting doubt on the rest of his claims.
-

Hearsay? What? Armstrong told him. He's the figure who apparently paid the money. How is that hearsay? Hearsay is if you hear 3rd hand. Besides sometimes hearsay provides context. The email written is not submitted as evidence. It was an account of what occurred. It this point the authorise collect information. When and if there are court proceedings the judge can decide what is permissible as evidence.

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't know the truth of that. Maybe it took six months to order and he wanted it for immediately after he retired? Who knows...

Pat McQuaid, Hein Verbruggen and Lance Armstrong - but they cant get their story straight

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

Hearsay? What? Armstrong told him. He's the figure who apparently paid the money. How is that hearsay? Hearsay is if you hear 3rd hand. Besides sometimes hearsay provides context. The email written is not submitted as evidence. It was an account of what occurred. It this point the authorise collect information. When and if there are court proceedings the judge can decide what is permissible as evidence.

Well it's a rumour unless he saw it himself. I'm just saying that throwing in this allegation, which is the most sensational allegation of them all in my view, will have the effect of blowing his credibility on the rest of his testimony if there is nothing to it. It's unfortunate. I think he should have stuck to things that he knows definitely happened.

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

McQuaid produces paper trail to refute positive test cover up

McQuaid produces paper trail to refute positive test cover up:

McQuaid presented a paper trail of letters from the Paris and Lausanne anti-doping labs, WADA and the Tour de Suisse organisers that he claims showed that Armstrong did not test positive for EPO in 2001 and so could never have attempted to bribe the UCI.

"The UCI take seriously the accusation that the UCI took a bribe to hide the positive test of Lance Armstrong in 2001," McQuaid said.

"We've contacted in recent days the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time. I have statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say. The letters will also soon be published on the UCI website in a sign of transparency.

"First the letter from the Paris lab, that is under the AFLD. They had three positives for EPO in the UCI account between 2001 and 2003. Two in 2001 and one in 2003. All the reports were sent to the UCI in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 were also sent CPLD and also sent to the International Olympic Committee. In relation to Lausanne, there were 18 positive tests for EPO for the UCI controlled by this lab between 2001 and 2003: six in 2001, four in 2002 and eight in 2003. All analysis were sent to IOC and Swiss Olympic.

I also have a letter from WADA that states from January 2004, every positive result for UCI also went to the WADA. I also have a report from the Tour de Suisse from 2001 which states that there was no doping case in 2001."

"All this information supports what the UCI has always stated: That there is no way that the UCI or it's former president Hein Verbruggen could have accepted a bribe. It's just not possible."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-acknowledges-accepting-armstrong-donation-a-mistake

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ***